> Intel is not targeting "real" 14nm. Intel deviated from ITRS
> rules years ago, what they call 14nm is "real" ~16nm.
>
> TSMC and Glofo/Samsung are playing by same rules than Intel now, just to avoid
> marketing abuse from Intel. As Scott Thompson (former Intel fellow) said: "Intel's
> 22nm node is really 26nm, so if Intel does new math, so will we."
>
> What part of Intel 14nm is only about half-node away from TSMC 16nm is not stil understood?

Repeat after me: The name of the node (e.g., 32nm, 16nm, 14nm, etc.) is simply marketing. Until you understand that, you are frankly just wallowing in your own ignorance and making yourself look bad and annoying the rest of us.

It doesn't matter whether you call it 14nm, 16nm, 15nm or a zebra. What matters is:

1. Contacted gate pitch
2. Minimum metal pitch
3. Ion vs. Ioff curves for NFETs and PFETs
4. Design rule restrictions
5. Metal performance
6. Unique features e.g., eDRAM, high density capacitors, etc.
7. Yield
8. Time to market for comparable products
9. SRAM density

Fortunately, #1,2,3,6, & 9 are often disclosed at VLSI or IEDM.

Historically Intel was ahead on CGP and SRAM density, but behind on metal pitch (because they optimized for RC delay instead of density). With 14nm, Intel will be ahead on density as well, because the foundries are all using 20nm metal back-ends.

The difference between Intel and TSMC should be judged on the basis of 1-9, not on the basis of BS marketing slides you've seen.

David